inurafandomcom-20200214-history
ABSTRACT of The New Metropolitan Mainstream -INURA Zurich – with Silvia comments
' ' =1) Aims and questions= ' ' Definition of New Metropolitan Mainstream and aim of our project Cities are becoming exclusive places for international investments and privileged people, leading towards an increasing economization of urban life.MSOffice1 These tendencies strongly influence urban policiesMSOffice2 all over the world.MSOffice3 Thus, "metropolitan" strategies and policies have become a general trend – a mainstream. The new metropolitan mainstream has important impacts on urban development and everyday life. There is a general tendency to support "metropolitan"MSOffice4 values. The new metropolitan mainstream has multiple faces and exists in many different versions. It is exactly the aim of our projectMSOffice5 to describe and analyse this diversity. Questions The project intends to answer the following questions: - How does global competition between cities lead to mainstream strategies of urban development? - How do cities adapt to – and produce – global metropolitan mainstreaming? - What are the differences and similarities experienced in different cities? - How are urban spaces shaped and changed by the new metropolitan mainstream? - How are local societies reacting to these changes? - Which local and global players are active, what interests are at stake? MSOffice6 Special attention will be given to the current worldwide economic crisisMSOffice7 : - How does this crisis affect the new metropolitan mainstream strategies? - Will it further enforce the competition between cities? - Will it enhance new ways of governance, new strategies? - Will it open up new possible alternatives? ' ' ' ' ' ' =2) The rediscovery of the urban= explore the roots of the new metropolitan mainstream (60s-mid 80s) Just some decades ago (60s - 70s), many saw metropolitan culture as a negative feature. During the 1970s and 1980s, ever-different kinds and forms of urban movements developed, calling for old and new urban qualities to be re-/invented. This "rediscovery of the city" was a process that was originally initiated by critical social groups.MSOffice8 It initiated a new cultural life, attractive urban settings and thus reurbanisation… becoming a mainstream development in many cities. =3) Cities as strategic nodes of global economy= explore the change occurred in the last 3 decades (mid 80s–10s) as for the city's economic base and the urban hierarchy Cities considerably renewed their importance as strategic sites for key branches in finance, culture, innovation, and investment. A number of cities concentrated global control functions and producer services of the world economy, as was shown both by the world city and the global city theories (Friedmann 1986; Sassen 1991). One aspect has not been emphasised enough: namely that these new, highly concentrated and specialized urban economies are now a very common phenomenon, and have also influenced the development of cities in the global South as well as smaller cities of the West. Today, many cities and urban regions are competing for key functions of the financial, governmental, media and communication sectors, of research and development and innovative producer services. MSOffice9 ' ' =4) Metropolis vs. suburban paradisesMSOffice10 = explore the change occurred in the last 3 decades as for new models of urban life/form emerged There is a great variety of middle and upper class “urban milieus” living again in inner city neighbourhoods. Informal forms of urbanismMSOffice11 are becoming a permanent feature of urban development, not only in the global South, but also more and more in “western” cities. explore the change occurred in the last 3 decades as for the metropolitan structure Today’s city regions have highly complex structures; they are polycentric and strongly interconnected. The result is an increasingly complex urban patchworkMSOffice12 , ranging from luxury islands and gated communities to deprived areas and pockets of poverty. ' ' Nevertheless, analyzing long-term developments, two typical “urban models” can be identifiedMSOffice13 : lifestyle of suburbia and lifestyle of environments with high density and a high level of urbanity. They have to be seen as two sides of the same coin: the contemporary situation of global urbanization and metropolitan regions. ' ' ' ' =5) Gentrification and urban renewalMSOffice14 = explore the change occurred in the last 3 decades as for urban policies ' ' The increasing attractivity of urban living is strongly connected with two processes of urban transformation becoming significant in the 1970s: gentrification ''(New York, Greenwich Village) and ''urban renewal ''(London Docklands). While gentrification is essentially a process driven by the private sector, through land prices, processes such as "urban renewal" or "urban regeneration" are directly linked to government measures, intended to upgrade “deprived” urban areas or to redevelop industrial (or infrastructural) brownfield sites. MSOffice15 Originally, both processes, gentrification and urban renewal, were limited in spatial as well as in temporal terms. In recent years, a generalization of such processes can be experienced. This can lead to a '''generalization of the urban upgrading'. There is an emerging tendency, where no longer only individual neighbourhoods become gentrified and restructured, but complete inner city areas or even large parts of metropolitan regions are upgraded; thus becoming privileged areas for certain parts of the global upper class. MSOffice16 =6) The “creative city” and cultural life= explore the emerging “urban culture” and its relationship to urban policy The inner-cities were (re-)discovered as places of creativity and innovation (creative city) "Urban culture" has become an asset for many economic activities, attracting qualified labour by a set of labels and a wide range of leisure and cultural facilities. Image production gained a special position in this process (symbolic economy). ' ' =7) The metropolitan becomes mainstream= The spatial dimension of the metropolitanMSOffice17 is increasingly expanding within a single city. The new metropolitan mainstream is no longer limited to individual global cities. What is new in today’s metropolitan mainstreaming? Metropolitan values (such as cosmopolitanism, open mindedness, and connectedness) are seen as necessary attributes: it is claimed that a city must meet this standard in order to survive in global competition. Thus the new metropolitan mainstream becomes a conceptual ideology and a spatial strategy l'eading to the fundamental transformation of cities'. What consequences for cities? The special feature of this process is not the airport city, the faceless "generic city" (Koolhaas 1995) without history, that is being homogenized through global mainstreaming, but precisely those areas that were supposedly distinctive and highly specific, giving a city its “typical” character.MSOffice18 ' ' =8) Metropolitan policies and strategies= ' ' The new metropolitan mainstream is a general tendency, which is enforced, promoted and solidified by specific urban policies and spatial strategies New is the wide distribution and application of these policies and strategies. They are gradually becoming general, a kind of global standard – and thus a mainstream. In recent years, these strategies and policies were strongly related with neoliberalism. Nevertheless, it can be argued that the new metropolitan mainstream is part of a longterm tendency of capitalist urbanization and not necessarily related to neoliberal politics. List of elements peculiar to the NMM policies and strategiesMSOffice19 (see also Harvey 1989).MSOffice20 ''Competitive entrepreneurialism: - shift from urban managerialism to entrepreneurialism, and from government to governance, under the strong influence of neoliberalism. - shift from policies aiming at the extension of the local welfare state to selective policies aiming at the support of the “decisive” part of the economy and population. - strategies: extension of infrastructure and/or tax relief, privatizations and/or public private partnerships, mega-projects associated to exceptional situations (mega-events) ''Regional marketing and development strategies: marketing and development strategies, aiming to improve the competitiveness in the global system (labelling systems) ''Skyline'' High-rise buildings are nowadays seen as landmarks for a metropolis, as well as symbols of investors’ confidence. The result could be described as a kind of "standard metropolitan architecture" looking quite similar from Shanghai to Istanbul. ''Landmarks and festivals'' The image of a city is pushed by inviting star architects to design spectacular buildings. The organization of festivals and mega-events is also not a new phenomenon, but today a must-have for every city struggling for global recognition. =9) The commodification of the urban= MSOffice21 All processes described above entail a new tendency: the incorporation of urban life into the process of valorising capital. This is certainly not a new phenomenon. New, however, is the systematic economic valorisation of urban space. The city itself, urban life, becomes a commodity. This means that the qualities of urban space – difference, encounter, creativity – will be part of the economic dispositive and of the systematic exploitation of productivity gains. describe processes of commodification Powerful social groups control and economically exploit urban space through various urban strategies: - occupation and control of public space by private economic actors (quasi-public spaces) to push urban life into commercially exploitable paths and reduce it to market- and consumer-oriented practices. - orchestration of events and spectacles (fan zones) as a form of expropriation of urban space. contradiction within the dialectic of the urban The desperate search for "authenticity", for old and new landmarks, and symbols is precisely an expression of this loss of urban quality. From a general point of view, this demonstrates a fundamental contradiction within the dialectic of the urban. On the one hand, the productivity of the city brings into mutual contact and re-action the most variegated elements of society. On the other hand, access to the resource which is the city tends to be controlled and appropriated by powerful interests. This limits both the productivity of the city and denies some the access to the resources of the city. In this process urban space loses its essential elements, in particular, its most important feature: the possibility of unexpected and unplanned encounter and interaction. ' ' 10) The social question: productivism and repressive tolerance explore differences and similarities between NMM and neoliberalism Although many aspects of the new metropolitan mainstream are connected with neoliberal urban policies, it is not synonymous with neoliberalism. - often based on "left" and "liberal" political positions - integration and cooptation of parts of oppositional milieus: claims and practices of urban milieus and movements often have become commercialized and/or part of upgrading strategies. - pretends to reconciliate prosperity and growth with a social conscience - open to the "other", but only as long as this “other” does not come too close BUT: - highly competitive and consumer oriented. - favours and requires high economic capital (for the expensive homes and services), high social capital (relationship, networks) and high cultural capital (to make use of the great cultural attractions). - despite its superficial tolerance, NMM leads to eviction and exclusion: either through "market mechanisms", or by means of state and para-state control ' ' =11) World economic crisis and the right to the city= Renaissance of “Right to the city” claims and movements (Lefebvre 1968; Harvey 2008). The reappearance of the old slogan today raises some pressing questions: - Were the struggles of old days in vain? - Are the cities’ hard-won qualities now evaporating in the new metropolitan mainstream? MSOffice22 For Lefebvre, the “right to the city” meant the right not to be forced into a space that was produced only for the purpose of discrimination. He placed this right alongside the other rights that define urban civilization: the rights to work, education, health, dwelling, leisure time, and life. The right to the city refers not to the city of earlier times but to urban life, to a renewed centrality, to the places of meeting and exchange, to life rhythms and a use of time that enables a full and complete use of these places. This right cannot simply be interpreted as the right to visit or to return to traditional city centres. It can only be formulated as the right to a transformed, renewed urban life. This means discovering paths to “possible urban worlds” (INURA 1998), in which unity is no longer opposed to difference, where the homogeneous no longer conflicts with the heterogeneous, and gatherings, encounters, and meetings – not without conflicts – will replace the struggle of individual urban elements that have become antinomies as a result of divisions: this urban space would provide the social basis for a radically transformed daily life that is open to possibility – and to a radically different world. The urban and the crises: new questions on the agenda? Today, new questions are on the agenda. An economic crisis of unprecedented dimensions is shaking the world. It already massively influences urban living, and it will continue to present huge challenges. Once more, the urban question is on the agenda: '- What is the city, what does urban life mean under these conditions? ' '- Which cities do we want, and who shall decide on our urban future? ' MSOffice23 Again, these old questions are up for discussion. ' ' =References= references of the original paper Benjamin, Walter (1935): Paris, die Hauptstadt des XIX. Jahrhunderts. In: Benjamin, Walter: Gesammelte Schriften Band V 1, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. 1982, 45–59. Brenner, Neil / Keil, Roger (eds.) (2006): The Global Cities Reader. Routledge: New York. Brenner, Neil / Theodore, Nik (2002): Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in Western Europe and North America. Blackwell: Oxford, Boston. Castells, Manuel (1983): The City and the Grassroots. A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. University of California Press: Berkeley, Los Angeles. Davis, Mike (1998): Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. New York: Metropolitan Books. Eick, Volker / Sambale, Jens / Töpfer, Eric (eds.) (2007): Kontrollierte Urbanität. Zur Neoliberalisierung städtischer Sicherheitspolitik. Transcript: Berlin. Florida, Richard (2002): The Rise of the Creative Class: How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books: New York. Friedmann, John (1986): The World City Hypothesis. In: Development and Change, 17(1), 69–83. Glass, Ruth (1964): London: Aspects of Change. Centre for Urban Studies, MacGibbon and Kee: London. Harvey, David (1989): From Manageralism to Entrepreneurialism. The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism. In: Geografiska Annaler Series B 71(1), 3–17. Harvey, David (2000): Spaces of Hope. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh. Harvey, David (2008): The Right to the City. In: New Left Review. 53 (Sept/Oct), 23–40. INURA (ed.) (1998): Possible Urban Worlds. Urban Strategies at the End of the 20th. Century. Birkhäuser: Basel. INURA / Paloscia, Raffaele (ed.) (2004): The Contested Metropolis. Six Cities at the Beginning of the 21st Century. Birkhäuser: Basel. Jacobs, Jane (1961): The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House: New York. Kipfer, Stefan / Goonewardena, Kanishka / Schmid, Christian / Milgrom, Richard (2008): Globalizing Lefebvre? In: K. Goonewardena et al. (eds.): Space, Difference, Everyday Life: Reading Henri Lefebvre. Routledge: London, 285– 305. Klaus, Philipp (2004): Creative and Innovative Microenterprises between World Market and Subculture. In: INURA (ed.): The Contested Metropolis. Six Cities at the Beginning of the 21st. Century. Birkhäuser: Basel, 261–268. Koolhaas, Rem (1995): The Generic City. In: J. Sigler (ed.), S, M, L, XL. The Monacelli Press: New York, 1238–1267. Landry, Charles (2000): The Creative City. A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. Earthscan: London. Lefebvre, Henri (1968): Le droit à la ville. Anthropos: Paris. Lefebvre, Henri (1998): Writings on Cities. Translated and edited by E. Kofman and E. Lebas. Blackwell: Oxford. Lefebvre, Henri (2003): The Urban Revolution. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis. Mitscherlich, Alexander (1965): Die Unwirtlichkeit unserer Städte. Anstiftung zum Unfrieden. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M.. Porter, Libby / Shaw, Kate (eds.) (2008): Whose Urban Renaissance? An International Comparison of Urban Regeneration Strategies. Routledge: London. Sassen, Saskia (1991): The Global City. New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey. Schmid, Christian / Weiss, Daniel (2004): The New Metropolitan Mainstream. In: INURA (ed.): The Contested Metropolis. Six Cities at the Beginning of the 21st Century. Birkhäuser: Basel, 252–260. Scott, Allen J. (1998): Regions and the World Economy. The Coming Shape of Global Production, Competition, and Political Order. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Simmie, James (2001): Innovative Cities. Spon Press: London. Smith, Neil (1996): The New Urban Frontier. Gentrification and the Revanchist City. Routledge: London, New York. Smith, Neil (2002): New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy. In: N. Brenner and N. Theodore: Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in Western Europe and North America. Blackwell: Oxford, Boston, 80–103. Storper, Michael (1997): The Regional World. Territorial Development in a Global Economy. Guilford: New York, London. Zukin, Sharon (1995): The Cultures of Cities. Blackwell: Cambridge MA. references to be added - ANANYA ROY, The 21st-Century Metropolis: New Geographies of Theory, Regional Studies, Vol. 43.6, pp. 819–830, July 2009 (mentioned by Ute and Roger in their comments) - JENNIFER ROBINSON, Cities in a World of Cities: The Comparative Gesture, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00982.x ---- MSOffice1I would change it to “as part of a general process of commodification of urban life” à Ok MSOffice2In my opinion, we should stress that local governments are responsible for those tendencies since they systematically chose to ally with “international investors” and “privileged people”. MSOffice3do we agree that these tendencies are worldwide? à This is the thesis of the nmm-RESEARCH. We want to find out…!!! MSOffice4it could be replaced by “to support the conversion to a mainstream sense of urbanity “ which is modernist, bourgeois, exclusive and excluding, ….and disqualify a series of urban worlds that we value MSOffice5We should say why this project is relevant to INURA aims and concerns (see INURA principles). Also, we should mention the peculiar INURA approach, which is based on “sharing of experiences and information among urban researchers and activists”. Both will inform the questions that follow à Very good. I included the same in AIMS MSOffice6Should these questions be revised and given a priority order? à I put an order in it when creating them. It is about 1. Phenomenons, 2. Deals/strategies, 3. Impacts, 4. Countercurrents. Do you share these questions? à Of course they can be revised and sharpened and extended MSOffice7Should we give more emphasize to the crises? We could propose a single set of questions, using the crises as a marker to better understand the NMM? à YES. To mention the crisis was the wish in Marathon. MSOffice8do we all agree on this statement? May we name these movements as “right to the city” movements, recalling Lefrebvre analysis right here rather than postponing it to the end of the paper? MSOffice9do we agree that “competition for key functions” is the “common” aspect we want to focus on? à this is one of the worlds key drivers of the development and also its basic ideology!!! what if we take into consideration critiques to global city theory? see U&R comments and references à They need to be named concretely. Personally I stick with Harvey’s thesis and statement of the entrepreneurial city 1989 MSOffice10I would change it to “New forms of urbanity” I agree 100% and I would avoid to cast suburbia as less “urban” I agree 100%. In my opinion, we should make an effort to identify new criteria for casting urbanity forms, criteria different from density / centrality / formality or legality / … The criteria I’m thinking about rather refer to those attributes that allow or not allow for commodification of the urban. à Also, a sociolgical differentiation is needed. An emphasis on Banlieues, Slums, Eastern Europe Suburbs as foci of unjust developments. MSOffice11what do “informal forms of urbanism” include? Are they different from “traditional” Mediterranean illegal neighbourhoods? MSOffice12Isit true worldwide? MSOffice13do we agree that these two “urban models” are common to all cities? Are there other models? Is this simplification useful to us? à not useful. See proposition in attached pdf. In my opinion, this is a dichotomist model typical of the mainstream planning debate, where pro-densification planners stand against anti-urban planners. I agree 100% MSOffice14I would change it to “urban up-grading and people displacement” MSOffice15say it better, in order to show the alliance among local government, private developers and land speculators. MSOffice16we should propose some explanation for this change MSOffice17in my opinion, it asks for a definition. What do we mean for “the metropolitan”? MSOffice18We should work out a list of consequences that are more “consistent” to INURA principles. I agree 100% =Missing aspects:= urban securitization privatization of commons (included urban spaces) dismantling of urban welfare systems precarisation of housing and work exclusion from urban decision-making MSOffice19Would you change /erase / add elements in this list? MSOffice20more (and more updated) references needed MSOffice21Could it become the main idea around which we revise this paper (as suggested by Ute and Roger)? MSOffice22I would revise these questions. In my opinion, they are only appropriate for “post-fordist” cities. MSOffice23I think we should put an effort in developing these two questions the better we can